Taxonomy, It's All About the Measurements!
-
That's right, according to RichTard Hughes taxonomy is all about measurements:
It ain't about characteristics as scientists have been saying, it's about the measurements! Small things are to be categorized separately from large things.
Rich uses a dipstick to do his measuring. I wonder when his ground changing paper will be published?
That's right, according to RichTard Hughes taxonomy is all about measurements:
Joe, it's a taxonomy. To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must measure it.
It ain't about characteristics as scientists have been saying, it's about the measurements! Small things are to be categorized separately from large things.
Rich uses a dipstick to do his measuring. I wonder when his ground changing paper will be published?
posted by Joe G @ 9:37 AM
126 Comments:
At 12:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
How would you now if something has a characteristic, Joe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement
You are possibly the most stupid person on the internet
At 12:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
How would you now if something has a characteristic, Joe?
Observations, not by whipping out a dipstick, dipshit.
It is very telling that there isn't any reference to taxonomy in your "measurement" link.
At 12:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Measurement is the process or the result of determining the magnitude of a quantity, such as length or mass, relative to a unit of measurement, such as a meter or a kilogram.
At 12:23 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW, "magnitude" is a reference to "size".
At 1:55 PM,
Joe G said…
To tell the difference between a biped and a quadruped, the unit of measure is feet, except when the organism has hooves.
LoL!
At 2:02 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
*bitchslap*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement
At 3:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Nope, nothing about taxonomy in that link either.
At 3:23 PM,
Joe G said…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/level_of_entertainment :
"The Richtard Hughes level of entertainment is very enjoyable for short intervals. However he tends to be a bit over-bearing and boring."
At 3:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Biology Teacher to class:
Who can tell me the difference between a biped and a quadruped?
RichTard Hughes:
Two feet! I measured it with a dipstick.
At 4:54 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You've attributed a false quote to a source. What does that make you, Joe? We'll just put measurement down as something else you don't understand.
At 5:02 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
We'll just put measurement down as something else you don't understand.
Is there anything you do understand? You obviously don't understand taxonomy and you don't even understand your sources.
You don't undersatnd biology. You don't understand science.
You are depicted in a James Taylor song:
Don't know nothin' 'bout history
Don't know much biology
Don't know nothin' 'bout no science book
Don't know nothin' 'bout the French I took
He wrote that about you Rich...
At 5:04 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You've attributed a false quote to a source. What does that make you, Joe?
At 5:07 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
You've attributed a false quote to a source.
What source?
What does that make you, Joe?
An evolutionist?
At 5:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"What source?"
You know very well. I think even you are capable of remembering what you wrote 3 posts ago.
Oh, it appears there is no "550 Main St Keene, NH"
At 5:25 PM,
Joe G said…
"What source?"
RichTard:
You know very well.
No well, I use city water.
Richtard:
I think even you are capable of remembering what you wrote 3 posts ago.
Yes, no source cited.
RichTard:
Oh, it appears there is no "550 Main St Keene, NH"
I am fucking devastated! They took it?!
I gotta go...
At 5:26 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Chickenshit. Go "feel like a hero again" with your action dolls.
At 5:29 PM,
Joe G said…
BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA
Action dolls? No Rich, I wouldn't mess with your dates.
BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAA
At 5:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What's the matter Joe? All your lies catching you up? I hope 'Jim' is there too. I hope he can bench 300 lbs like you. Where exactly are you again?
At 5:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
What's the matter Joe?
You seem to be too fucked up to support anything you say.
Rich:
All your lies catching you up?
What lies?
Rich:
I hope 'Jim' is there too.
Nope. Sorry to disappoint you.
Rich:
I hope he can bench 300 lbs like you.
He is bigger and stronger than I am.
Rich:
Where exactly are you again?
In my computer room.
At 5:49 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"What lies?"
Having trouble keeping track?
"In my computer room."
Fancy giving me an adress that's not fake?
At 5:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Still having trouble supporting your bullshit.
And sorry Rich, my family doesn't want your type of lowlife around.
At 6:23 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Just in: Internet bully is a chicken. In other news,dog bites man.
At 6:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Ummm evolutionists are the bullies- both on and off the internet.
However I will make YOU the same offer I have made blipey- come to New Hampshire, tell me when and where you will be staying and we can arrange something.
I just can't have a pyscho-loser internet stalker level 3 child molester like you around my house.
In other news- man punts dog, film at 11
At 7:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
but that's not how it works, is it Joe:
And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face," and also "I will do whatever it takes to stop it."
..I think you know what that means... (think location)
..If you are going to wrongly verbally push people, then you have to be prepared for the consequences.
Chickenshit.
At 7:12 PM,
Joe G said…
This is how it works for all non-chickenshits:
However I will make YOU the same offer I have made blipey- come to New Hampshire, tell me when and where you will be staying and we can arrange something.
I just can't have a pyscho-loser internet stalker level 3 child molester like you around my house.
At 7:14 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
My goodness! Is your old behaviour now suddenly unacceptable?
Chickenshit. Not feeling like a hero any more?
At 7:16 PM,
Joe G said…
"I will do whatever it takes to stop it."
Obviously Rich won't because he is a chickenshit
..If you are going to wrongly verbally push people,
But I am not wrongly verbally pushing anyone here.
At 7:17 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
where are you, Chickenshit? Give me an adress that is REAL this time.
At 7:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Is your old behaviour now suddenly unacceptable?
Context is important, asshole. And yes it is acceptable.
At 7:19 PM,
Joe G said…
This is how it works for all non-chickenshits:
However I will make YOU the same offer I have made blipey- come to New Hampshire, tell me when and where you will be staying and we can arrange something.
I just can't have a pyscho-loser internet stalker level 3 child molester like you around my house.
At 7:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So you'll have no problem with me comming round. What's the context difference? Oh right - your whole personna is fictional.
At 7:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Why did you give a fake adress last time, Joe? That makes me angry.
At 7:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
So you'll have no problem with me comming round.
Nope, I am ready.
Rich:
Oh right - your whole personna is fictional.
All you have to do to find out is come to New Hampshire, tell me when and where you will be staying and we can arrange something.
At 7:22 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Nope, I am ready."
Okay - so where are you? No lies this time.
At 7:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Why did you give a fake adress last time, Joe?
What do you mean "fake"? How do you know that it is "fake"? And what did I say- exactly- "last time"?
At 7:23 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
How come the rules change when someone does it to you, joe?
At 7:23 PM,
Joe G said…
All you have to do to find out is come to New Hampshire, tell me when and where you will be staying and we can arrange something.
OR you can get Ogre's address, blipey's address and your address, post them here, and once I verify them I will come and visit each of yu, personally.
At 7:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"The same place I have lived for years.
If you want to visit me I can be found at 550 Main St in Keene, NH. Just ask for Joe G."
At 7:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
How come the rules change when someone does it to you, joe?
What rules?
Shit I have had evotards send lie-filled hate emails to my employer and threaten to come there.
At 7:26 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
If you want to visit me I can be found at 550 Main St in Keene, NH. Just ask for Joe G."
What do you mean "fake"? How do you know that it is "fake"?
At 7:28 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Well you're not 'there', are you?
At 7:36 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Shit I have had evotards send lie-filled hate emails to my employer and threaten to come there."
Does that make threatening others allright, then?
At 8:45 PM,
Joe G said…
"Shit I have had evotards send lie-filled hate emails to my employer and threaten to come there."
Rich:
Does that make threatening others allright, then?
You are confusing standing up to assholes and liars with threatening someone.
But then again you are a confused little boy...
At 8:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich:
Well you're not 'there', are you?
Apparently you're not all 'there', Rich.
But if you go 'there' and ask, as I said, then you may find what you seek.
At 9:52 PM,
Hermagoras said…
If I recall, Rich, Joe just wanted to have a nice friendly conversation with me. Isn't that right Joe?
At 10:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"But if you go 'there' and ask, as I said, then you may find what you seek."
Bullshit - like the rest of your story.
"You are confusing standing up to assholes and liars with threatening someone."
You're engaging in unequivocal hypocrisy.
At 7:01 AM,
Joe G said…
"But if you go 'there' and ask, as I said, then you may find what you seek."
RichTard:
Bullshit
Sed the bullshit artist.
like the rest of your story.
Sed the fucking liar.
"You are confusing standing up to assholes and liars with threatening someone."
You're engaging in unequivocal hypocrisy.
Sed the piece of shit hypocrite.
At 7:01 AM,
Joe G said…
Davd Kellogg:
If I recall, Rich, Joe just wanted to have a nice friendly conversation with me. Isn't that right Joe?
If that is what it would have taken to get you to stop your lies and bullshit.
At 7:19 AM,
Joe G said…
It is obvious that RichTard will not, because he cannot, support his claims about taxonomy.
Why is it that when evotards get their ignorance exposed they always become belligerent? It's a freaking daily occurence so you would think they would have figured it out by now.
Oh well- on topic comments only and the topic of this thread is about taxonomy and measurements.
Thank you for your cooperation- all off-topic comments will be treated as spam and holed.
At 10:10 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
That's right, run away chickenshit.
At 10:33 AM,
Joe G said…
(shakes his head)
How can I be running away when I am right here and just trying to get back on-topic?
You are the one running away from your unsupportable claims by providing this distraction.
At 10:40 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Chickenshit. Purveyor of false information, fabricator of false persona's.
*shakes head*
At 10:42 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/measure
7. any standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment.
Are you telling me this doesn't happen in a taxonomy?
At 10:45 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"If that is what it would have taken to get you to stop your lies and bullshit."
Sarcasm - something else Joe doesn't understand.
At 10:54 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Chickenshit. Purveyor of false information, fabricator of false persona's.
Yes, you are- and more.
Did you have a point?
At 10:55 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/measure
7. any standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment.
Are you telling me this doesn't happen in a taxonomy?
Make your case fuckhead. Provide the reference to taxonomy that explicitly talks about measurements.
Or just admit you made it up.
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
"If that is what it would have taken to get you to stop your lies and bullshit."
RichTard:
Sarcasm - something else Joe doesn't understand.
Reality, something Richtard will never understand.
OK enough fun with your tard for today.
I will catch up with your lies and bullshit tomorrow.
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
In the meantime you could just provide your address, blipey's address and ogre's address- I will come and visit each one of you peckerwood cowards.
How about it?
At 11:02 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Make your case."
I just did simply, and won, completely.
I assert "To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must measure it."
You have a hissy, because you don't understand 'measure'.
I show that measure means:
"any standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment."
You, full of ignorance and bluster claim you'd form a taxonomy by "Observations, not by whipping out a dipstick, dipshit."
But 'Observations' are clearly a "standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment.", and therefore a measurement.
Now fuck of with your tail between your legs, you ignorant coward.
At 11:10 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, you should look at your honesty when asking people to do things you're not prepared to do yourself (even though you pretend to have done so).
Chicknshit.
At 12:21 PM,
Joe G said…
RichChickenShitTard:
Joe, you should look at your honesty when asking people to do things you're not prepared to do yourself
Don't call me a chickenshit for not doing something you are not willing to do.
That's just pure chickenshit...
At 12:30 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I just did simply, and won, completely.
In your mind, perhaps.
I am still waiting for that reference to taxonomy that says what you did. Until you provide that you are a chickenshit.
At 12:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
If you're too stupid to understand this:
just did simply, and won, completely.
I assert "To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must measure it."
You have a hissy, because you don't understand 'measure'.
I show that measure means:
"any standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment."
You, full of ignorance and bluster claim you'd form a taxonomy by "Observations, not by whipping out a dipstick, dipshit."
But 'Observations' are clearly a "standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment.", and therefore a measurement.
Now fuck of with your tail between your legs, you ignorant coward.
You shouldn't be on the internet.
At 12:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Look if you are unable to provide a valid reference to support your claims that is OK.
Just so you know I have sent emails out to scientists who do this classification stuff for a living to see if what you sed is correct.
My guess is they will say that is wrong- for one because it doesn't provide any context.
"measure it" with what, against what- nuthin but RichTard's vague bullshit.
But I will wait for the experts anyway.
At 1:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Look if you are unable to provide a valid reference to support your claims that is OK."
I just did - a dictionary, you half wit. I suspect you realize this, but just can't admit it.
"measure it"
correct:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/measure
7. any standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment.
So we could use comparisons, esitmations and judgements as our measurements.
You claim that you'd find "Observations" to be acceptable. That certainly falls within
"any standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment."
which is a.... MEASUREMENT.
Chickenshit - "Abraham and Isaac."!
At 1:03 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Just so you know I have sent emails out to scientists who do this classification stuff for a living to see if what you sed is correct."
I've already shown, BY DEFINITION, that I am correct.
But the old liar Joe "I just emailed and expert and he agrees with me" gambit is funny to watch.
At 1:07 PM,
Joe G said…
"Look if you are unable to provide a valid reference to support your claims that is OK."
RichTard:
I just did - a dictionary, you half wit.
Taxonomy reference you moron.
Until you do that you don't have anything but your tard.
At 1:09 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I've already shown, BY DEFINITION, that I am correct.
Yet you cannot reference a TAXONOMY journal nor taxonomist that agrees with you.
RichTard:
But the old liar Joe "I just emailed and expert and he agrees with me" gambit is funny to watch.
Yes I accept the word of experts over your lies and bullshit.
At 1:12 PM,
Joe G said…
I see RichTard is still upset that I asked an expert and that expert exposed RichTard's ignorance on fire investigations.
But I bet tardfuck denies it...
At 1:15 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I don't need to reference a taxonomy journal, I've effortless proved my point (and highlighted your deficiencies in understanding the understanding the English language) using a dictionary - which is quite good at defining stuff.
This has been fun - your inability to grasp basic English and your crapping your pants at a possible visit is just hilarious. I'm sure my good friend Hermagoras is enjoying this.
At 1:24 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Bonus Bitchslap:
http://tinyurl.com/4jhrztq
At 1:36 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I don't need to reference a taxonomy journal,
To support your claim about taxonomy you need to either reference a taxonomy journal or a taxonomist.
RichTard:
I've effortless proved my point
No, you only think you did. As I said you didn't provide any context- you just sed "measure it", and that is wrong and I have the experts to back me up.
Go figure...
At 1:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, it's a taxonomy. To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must measure it.
No context- nothing. Just "measure it"- nothing that sez what to measure or how to measure, nothing.
But that is an evotard argument for ya- be as vague as possible that way you can run around with the goalposts and pronounce a (hollow) victory.
At 1:41 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"To support your claim about taxonomy you need to either reference a taxonomy journal or a taxonomist."
So you claim. Support this claim by the standards you ask for.
At 1:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Isn't "Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data" a great book?
At 1:44 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"No, you only think you did"
No, I did. You'd like others to think I didn't, but we both know I did.
At 6:59 AM,
Joe G said…
To support your claim about taxonomy you need to either reference a taxonomy journal or a taxonomist.
RichTard:
So you claim. Support this claim by the standards you ask for.
If you don't support your claims with the proper reference your claims are meaningless.
At 7:00 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Isn't "Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data" a great book?
Never read it so I couldn't say.
However it is quite funny- hilarious actually, that you think that just because you can find the key words spread out in a book that supports your claim.
At 7:04 AM,
Joe G said…
"No, you only think you did"
RichTard:
No, I did.
Yet I explained why you didn't and all you can do is iggnore that explanation:
No context- nothing. Just "measure it"- nothing that sez what to measure or how to measure, nothing.
But that is an evotard argument for ya- be as vague as possible that way you can run around with the goalposts and pronounce a (hollow) victory.
You sed:
To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must measure it.
But the correct way to say it is"
To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must see if it meausres up to the specified criteria.
Now it is complete, not that you would understand that...
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I've already shown, BY DEFINITION, that I am correct.
Strange- I demonstrate that BY DEFINITION design is a mechanism and RichTard throws a hissy fit and to this day denies that design is a mechanism.
Ya see, moron, BY YOUR STANDARDS design is a mechanism.
Thanks fer playin'...
At 9:40 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Design works for conceptualization but not fabrication. It's pretty clear everyone in talking about fabrication.
Thanks for playing.
At 9:42 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"However it is quite funny- hilarious actually, that you think that just because you can find the key words spread out in a book that supports your claim."
I find it quite halarious you can find whole paragraphs on how to correctly measure taxonomies.
*Bitchslap*
At 11:53 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Design works for conceptualization but not fabrication.
BY DEFINITION design works for both conceptualization and fabrication.
Ya see, moron, when you fabricate the thing that was designed, you fabricate it by design, that is by the provided plan. You don't design something and then have it fabricated willy-nilly.
Again this has all been explained to you many times.
At 11:54 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
I find it quite halarious you can find whole paragraphs on how to correctly measure taxonomies.
Present them then.
At 11:55 AM,
Joe G said…
You sed:
To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must measure it.
No context- nothing. Just "measure it"- nothing that sez what to measure or how to measure, nothing.
But that is an evotard argument for ya- be as vague as possible that way you can run around with the goalposts and pronounce a (hollow) victory.
But the correct way to say it is:
To see if something conforms to a taxonomy, you must see if it meausres up to the specified criteria.
Now it is complete, not that you would understand that...
And seeing that you ignored it that proves you don't understand it.
At 11:58 AM,
Joe G said…
design:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
That pertains to fabrication, bitch.
At 12:04 PM,
Joe G said…
fabricate:
2: construct, manufacture; specifically : to construct from diverse and usually standardized parts
At 12:06 PM,
Joe G said…
mechanism:
b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
At 2:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
*BITCSHSLAP*
" Joe G said...
design:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
That pertains to fabrication, bitch."
Erm, no. It clearly states you need the plan first.
As you're not promoting all the posts, I'm leaving you. Have fun in the the wasteland by yourself, Chickenshit.
At 3:03 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
It clearly states you need the plan first.
The plan is the design. You construct the object according to the plan/ design.
plan:
: an orderly arrangement of parts of an overall design or objective
And BTW this blog isn't here to promote your assnine off-topic bullshit.
At 3:32 PM,
Joe G said…
design:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
That pertains to fabrication, bitch."
Ya see, moron, when you fabricate the thing that was designed, you fabricate it by design, that is by the provided plan. You don't design something and then have it fabricated willy-nilly.
Again this has all been explained to you many times.
So yes, run away with your tail between your legs. Go back to the comfort of other addled tards behaving cowardly. Go back to where you can lie- and get positive feedback- about your opposition enough times you think it's true.
At 3:42 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No, I'm just going where all the posts make it through (even yours). And that clearly isn't here, because you're a coward on every level. Bye.
At 3:47 PM,
Joe G said…
I am devastated! A known piece of shit lying coward just tried to tell me off!
Time for another guiness....
At 5:05 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Ya see, moron, when you fabricate the thing that was designed, you fabricate it by design, that is by the provided plan. You don't design something and then have it fabricated willy-nilly."
I can design a house and then give that design to two different builders. They will no doubt implement that design differently.
The same goes for 100 builders. 100 varying fabrication methods. They all amount to "build a house" but the methodology is not included in the blueprints.
So if everybody is using the same plan to fabricate the house the method for fabrication cannot, by definition, be in the plan. Only the end result to be worked towards.
Therefore design (a plan) is not a mechanism for fabrication and you provided the evidence for that yourself!
At 7:21 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
I can design a house and then give that design to two different builders. They will no doubt implement that design differently.
You don't know that and it doesn't matter.
OM:
Therefore design (a plan) is not a mechanism for fabrication and you provided the evidence for that yourself!
The plan is designed and you are building the house by design if you follow a plan- any plan.
Geez are you also too stupid to read a fucking dictionary?
At 6:24 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"You don't know that and it doesn't matter."
I do know that and it does matter. It shows that "design" is not a mechanism.
"The plan is designed and you are building the house by design if you follow a plan- any plan."
Therefore design is not a mechanism! The way you build the house is a mechanism, not the way it's designed.
At 8:11 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
I do know that and it does matter. It shows that "design" is not a mechanism.
Except it doesn't show that design is not a mechanism. So you don't know anything.
"The plan is designed and you are building the house by design if you follow a plan- any plan."
OM:
Therefore design is not a mechanism!
BY DEFINITION design is a mechanism:
design:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
Get it? If you construct a house acording to a plan, any pan, then youare building it by design- BY DEFINITION.
OM:
The way you build the house is a mechanism, not the way it's designed.
And according to the definition if you build the house according to some plan then you built it by design.
At 8:21 AM,
Joe G said…
design:
1: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
That pertains to fabrication, bitch.
mechanism:
b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
A design is a process, technique or system for achieving a result. Therefor design is a mechanism.
At 8:38 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
" Therefor design is a mechanism."
And so mechanism is the same as design. Which makes no sense.
At 9:16 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
And so mechanism is the same as design.
Nope- try again, moron.
At 10:23 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Nope- try again, moron."
A = B.
B = A.
Design is mechanism.
Mechanism is design.
At 11:20 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Design is mechanism.
Mechanism is design.
Design is a mechanism. Willy-nilly is also a mechanism.
And you are a moron.
At 12:49 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Design is a mechanism. Willy-nilly is also a mechanism."
So "randomly" is a mechanism then? And "evolution" can be a mechanism too then?
Seems to me the more you talk the more you undermine your point.
Evolution is the design mechanism you have been looking for all these years Joe.
At 1:37 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So "randomly" is a mechanism then?
Yes you can do something randomly.
OM:
And "evolution" can be a mechanism too then?
How so? And again your equivocation is duly noted.
OM:
Seems to me the more you talk the more you undermine your point.
The more you post the more you prove that you are an imbecile.
OM:
Evolution is the design mechanism you have been looking for all these years Joe.
You have yet to demonstrate that "evolution" is a mechanism and you have yet to understand taht you are an equivocating wanker
At 2:22 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
So if evolution has a random component then evolution is at least partly a mechanism, contrary to what you just claimed.
Right or wrong?
At 2:39 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So if evolution has a random component then evolution is at least partly a mechanism, contrary to what you just claimed.
I asked you how is evolution a mechanism- I didn't claim anything.
Not only that you are still an equivocating wanker.
You still need to make your case.
So first define evolution. Then we can see if it fits the definition of a mechanism.
At 2:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Front-loaded evolution- the front-loading is the mechanism
Targeted search/ goal oriented evolution- the targeted search is the mechanism.
Blind watchmaker evolution- the blind watchmaker is the mechanism.
So it all depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. But this has been explained to you before and you are too stupid to understand it.
At 2:49 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"So first define evolution. Then we can see if it fits the definition of a mechanism."
Evolution - it has a random component.
Randomness is a mechanism.
Therefore evolution is a mechanism.
At 2:55 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Targeted search/ goal oriented evolution- the targeted search is the mechanism."
Keeping track of time - the timekeeping mechanism is the mechanism.
Launching a rocket to the moon - the rocket is the mechanism.
LOL. All very well and good Joe but it tells us nothing useful at all about the subject.
"So it all depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. "
Change in allele frequency over time? How's that?
Joe, do you have a single shred of evidence for your "targeted search/ goal oriented" evolution idea?
Even Dembski dismissed it out of hand!
At 4:34 PM,
Joe G said…
"So first define evolution. Then we can see if it fits the definition of a mechanism."
OM:
Evolution - it has a random component
So you are too stupid to define "evolution", got it.
At 4:35 PM,
Joe G said…
"So it all depends on what type of evolution you are talking about. "
OM:
Change in allele frequency over time?
That's a RESULT you fucking moron.
OM:
Joe, do you have a single shred of evidence for your "targeted search/ goal oriented" evolution idea?
Yes, which is more than you have for your blind watchmaker evolution idea.
At 5:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Random variation/ random mutation is a mechanism of evolution.
Differential reproduction is a mechanism of evolution.
Heredity is a mechanism of evolution.
Random genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution.
At 5:23 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Even Dembski dismissed it out of hand!
He dismissed a strawman version out-of-hand.
At 7:33 PM,
Joe G said…
NOBEL LAUREATES INITIATIVE:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
At 5:12 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"He dismissed a strawman version out-of-hand."
So why not present him with a paper detailing your ideas?
Seems you are finding out an uncomfortable fact - to support your ideas you need more then just the idea. You need to work at it and support it with evidence.
Dembski knows this, which is why he rejected your "targeted search" idea out of hand.
At 6:49 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Seems you are finding out an uncomfortable fact - to support your ideas you need more then just the idea. You need to work at it and support it with evidence
Nice projection.
OM:
Dembski knows this, which is why he rejected your "targeted search" idea out of hand.
He rejected a strawman you moron.
At 10:55 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"He rejected a strawman you moron."
A strawman you created!
At 11:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Except I didn't create any strawman. Targeted searches are well known throughout the engineering world as a powerful mechanism.
Fuck, Dawkins used one to demonstrate how powerful they can be given the simplest of instructions.
But anyway, as I said and your ignored, Dembski thought I was talking about front-loaded evolution- and some restrictive version at that.
At 4:43 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Targeted searches are well known throughout the engineering world as a powerful mechanism."
That's right Joe. And in the engineering world those "targets" are plain to see.
What evidence do you have that such "targets" exist in the DNA of any biological organism? Just because you say they do?
Can't have a search without a target, can't see no targets in no critters DNA.
Therefore Joe utters yet another evidence free ID talking point.
Unless of course you can see such targets in DNA and tell me how I can see them too?
At 4:47 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"But anyway, as I said and your ignored, Dembski thought I was talking about front-loaded evolution- and some restrictive version at that."
Oh dear me Joe.
You said:
"What do you think of the idea that a targeted search was/ is a plausible design mechanism employed by the designer(s) of living organisms?
(yes I know ID is not about specific mechanisms but even you said no one is prevented from looking into it)"
Dembski said:
"Sure, it’s possible, Joseph. But what’s the evidence. Searches tend to be gradual, narrowing down, step by step, on the target and thus implying lots of intermediaries. Do we see such chains of intermediaries in the history of life? Darwinists count the fossil record as a wonderful vindication of their theory. From a less biased stance, the fossil record doesn’t look nearly so good."
No mention of front-loaded evolution from you or Dembski on that thread, only from tragic mishap and Dembski did not respond to him.
I suspect that you've rewritten this episode after the fact in your memory as you are attributing things to Dembski that were plainly not said.
Read it yourself if you need reminding of how it went down.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/robert-marks-interviewed-by-tom-woodward/#comment-371321
At 5:14 PM,
Joe G said…
"Targeted searches are well known throughout the engineering world as a powerful mechanism."
OM:
That's right Joe. And in the engineering world those "targets" are plain to see.What evidence do you have that such "targets" exist in the DNA of any biological organism? Just because you say they do?
The nature of some mutations- as I have told you before.
What does your position say- shit just happens?
OM:
Can't have a search without a target, can't see no targets in no critters DNA.
That is because your head is up your ass.
At 5:17 PM,
Joe G said…
"But anyway, as I said and your ignored, Dembski thought I was talking about front-loaded evolution- and some restrictive version at that."
OM:
Oh dear me Joe.
No, fuck you, moron.
Read what Dembski said- it is obvious he was talking about Darwinian evolution but with a target:
Searches tend to be gradual, narrowing down, step by step, on the target and thus implying lots of intermediaries. Do we see such chains of intermediaries in the history of life?
You are a moron and an excellent representative of all evotard cowards.
At 5:26 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"it is obvious he was talking about Darwinian evolution but with a target"
Bur earlier you said: "Dembski thought I was talking about front-loaded evolution- and some restrictive version at that."
Huh? Which is it Joe? Make your mind up.
Your original question to Dembski was "What do you think of the idea that a targeted search was/ is a plausible design mechanism employed by the designer(s) of living organisms?"
Nothing about front loading there.....
At 6:25 PM,
Joe G said…
A targeted search is front loading you moron.
At 6:51 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
So when you said:
"Dembski thought I was talking about front-loaded evolution"
Dembski was right. You just said:
"A targeted search is front loading you moron."
And then you said to Dembski:
"What do you think of the idea that a targeted search was/ is a plausible design mechanism employed by the designer(s) of living organisms?"
And then he said:
"Sure, it’s possible, Joseph. But what’s the evidence."
Well, that's you told whatever way you want to look at it.
Well Joseph? What *is* the evidence?
You had no answer for Dembski, do you have one for me?
At 7:04 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Well Joseph? What *is* the evidence?
You had no answer for Dembski, do you have one for me?
I already posted it, for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home